SCOTTISH farmers breathed a sigh of relief this week as the European Commission finally agreed to re-licence the key herbicide glyphosate.

The chemical passed all of the European Union’s safety tests many months ago, but its re-approval had been blocked by political opposition, spurred by a disputed 2015 report from the World Health Organization's cancer agency which had suggested that the substance was ‘probably’ carcinogenic.

With the weight of European scientific opinion coming out in favour of continued use, and doubts cast on that WHO report’s methodology, the National Farmers Union Scotland had been lobbying for a full 15 year reauthorisation of what it described as an 'essential' product for Scottish agriculture. As such, this week’s Brussels appeal committee decision to give the product five more years got a lukewarm welcome.

Union president Andrew McCornick said that it had been a "hugely frustrating process, which saw politics rather than scientific evidence" delay the decision.

“Glyphosate is vital to Scottish farmers who use it to control weeds, manage harvests, and reduce grain drying costs. It has been an unnecessarily protracted process, but finally the uncertainty for our members is over and they can start planning for next year, factoring the use of glyphosate into their cropping and harvesting plans.

“Off the back of such a difficult harvest and challenging planting conditions for so many Scottish farmers, the thought of not having such a useful and environmentally-beneficial product would have been daunting."

European farm unions Copa and Cogeca also declared themselves disappointed. Secretary-General Pekka Pesonen said: "It should have been re-authorised for 15 years after it was given a positive assessment by both EFSA, and the ECHA. It is vital not only to feed a growing population with reliable food supplies at affordable prices. But also it reduces the need for ploughing which benefits the environment and enables farmers to apply no tillage which reduces soil erosion and keeps soil organic matters up. Without it, our food supplies will be put at risk as there are currently no alternatives on the market. We have very high standards in the EU which consumers need to be better informed of."

The Agricultural Industries Confederation, which represents the majority of businesses distributing plant protection products in the UK, welcomed the renewed approval, but said that the process by which it had been granted had been "unnecessarily tortuous".

AIC noted that the current EU science-based approval process of risk identification and minimisation for PPPs had identified that glyphosate met all the criteria for approval, an opinion upheld following scrutiny and re-scrutiny: "However, unlike other active substances, the opinion of independent scientific bodies was rejected by many lobbyists in an attempt to undermine GM technology, big businesses and pesticides more generally," claimed an AIC spokesman.

Speaking from the UK’s cutting-edge agri-research centre at Rothamsted, plant ecologist Jonathan Storkey acknowledged that the industry would be best not to plan for further re-licencing after the next five years are up: “The negative impacts of pesticides on the environment mean that reducing their use should continue to be a policy and research aim.

“However, the level of food production and affordability of food we have become accustomed to cannot be currently maintained without chemical crop protection products,” said Mr Storkey. “While every effort should be taken to reduce the risk of pesticides to human health and the environment, therefore, these risks need to be balanced against the benefits they bring in terms of food security.

“In the context of this difficult balancing act, I believe the renewal of the approval of glyphosate is to be cautiously welcomed and is the right decision. In terms of direct toxicity on non-target organisms, it is relatively benign, and it is an important mainstay of weed control. That said, the scrutiny of glyphosate emphasises the importance of finding ways to control weeds that are less reliant on chemical control – a goal that is a focus of weed scientists at Rothamsted.”

For in-depth news and views on Scottish agriculture, see this Friday’s issue of The Scottish Farmer or visit www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk